Q6 - Although some nutritional facts

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Inference (must be true)

Break down the Stimulus:
Read for Conditional / Causal / Quantitative / Contrast.
Here we have Causal in the 2nd sentence "make it easier" and conditional-causal in the 3rd sentence "if easier --> many would --> their health would improve"

Any prephrase?
If we chain that together, we're looking at:
List exact caffeine content -> easier to limit --> many people would --> their health would improve. Let's look for a safe way of reflecting that chain of causality. Beware extreme and new comparisons.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
A) Looks great! Super safe language and reflects the chain of causality.

B) Reversal. We know what happens if caffeine content IS listed, not what happens if caffeine content IS NOT listed.

C) Same as C.

D) Maybe, but we don't know anything about eliminating caffeine intake. The info we received was about limiting, but NOT eliminating, caffeine.

E) Where can we find "worsened health" in our information?

Takeaway/Pattern: Pretty easy early Inference question - visible chain of ideas (presented in chronological order and with verbatim linkage from sentence 2 to 3). The correct answer was safely worded. Wrong answers used "Fake Opposites". (f.e., If we're only told about cats who have been de-clawed, we can't infer anything about cats who still have their claws)

#officialexplanation

[syr1990]

Is B wrong because it says "unable" instead of many people will not? If it was worded that way it would be a correct contra positive right?

[timmydoeslsat]

It would not be correct. Our question stem is very strict. A must be true question stem.

This set of statements looks like this:

Listing Exact Caff ---> Easier to limit blah blah ---> Many people would ---> Many people health improve

Answer choice A fits this inference chain perfectly.

B) This eliminates the ability to use the sufficient condition. We know what happens when we have a situation of Listing Exact Caff. We do not know what happens when we lack this sufficient condition. It very well could be true, but not must be true.

[superb.one]

I initially put B as well. I believe B is incorrect not because of the unable/not many people thing. After reading it again B diagrammed out would be ~LCC --> ~LCI a mistaken negation not the contrapositive of ~LCI --> ~LCC we need.

[csunnerberg13]

Reasons for eliminating:

B: we don't know anything about what will happen if content is NOT listed - that's the present situation, but we don't know much more than that.
C: We're not talking about people who are eliminating caffeine - we're talking about those who want to limit but not eliminate
D: same issue - we don't care about those who are eliminating. Also, this doesn't make sense because if they are eliminating entirely, they don't need to know the exact caffeine content - they just need to know there is caffeine present.
E: Unsupported because we only know that many people's health would improve...everyone else could stay the same, they don't necessarily have to worsen.

Do people agree/disagree with my reasoning?